The use of emetics to obtain internally concealed drugs as evidence - a means of torture?

STRUCTURE

First Part : Introduction and aim and purpose of the thesis
I. Introduction
II. Aim and purpose of the thesis

Second Part: Procedures of obtaining evidence in cases of internal concealment in Germany and Australia
I. The German procedure
II. The Australian procedure
III. Legal comparison and summary

Third Part: Admissibility of the use of emetics under international law
I. International instruments aiming at the prohibition of torture
II. The use of emetics and the European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
1. Travaux préparatoires
2. Case law
(1) Greek Case
(2) Northern Ireland v. United Kingdom
(3) Aksoy v. Turkey
(4) Aydin v. Turkey
(5) Ahmet Çakıcı v. Turkey
(6) Selmouni v. France
(7) Salman v. Turkey
(8) Dikme v. Turkey
(9) Akkoç v. Turkey
(10) Elçi and Others v. Turkey
(11) Balogh v. Hungary
3. Summary with regard to the case law
4. The use of emetics as torture according to Art. 3 ECHR
(1) Severe physical or mental suffering because of the use of emetics
(a) Is the use of emetics generally admissible under Art. 3 ECHR ?
(b) In what way does the emetic have to be administered in order to
be lawful as per Art. 3 ECHR ?
(aa) Administration of ipecac syrup through a tube
(bb) Injection of apomorphine
(2) Intention of the use of emetic
(3) Purpose of the use of emetics under German law
(4) Public official administering the emetic
5. Summary of the use of emetics and Art. 3 ECHR
III. The use of emetics and the United Nations Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1. Scope of the prohibition of torture contained in the UNCAT
2. Application to the use of emetics
IV. Summary

Fourth Part: Conclusion and outlook

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Articles/Books/Reports

1. Signed

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2. Unsigned

‘Brechmittel: Dealer war herzkrank, Drogenpolitik, Allein in diesem Jahr gab es 74 Einsätze, 2001 waren es nur 36’, Hamburger Abendblatt (Hamburg), 20-21/04/2002, 11

‘Brechmitteleinsatz: Dealer in Lebensgefahr’, Die WELT (Berlin), 10/12/2001, 33

‘Ipecacuanha’, Die WELT (Berlin), 11/12/2001, 34

‚Neue Folterdefinition in Amerika’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 03/01/2005, 5

Niederschrift über den öffentlichen Teil der 120. Sitzung des Ausschusses für Rechts- und Verfassungsfragen, in Beantwortung des Antrages der Fraktion der CDU – Drs. 14/3115 (Hannover), 6th June 2002

‘Schill verteidigt Brechmittel-Einsatz gegen Drogendealer’, Die WELT (Berlin), 11/12/2001, 4

‘Vermischtes’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (Frankfurt), 21/04/2002, 11

‘Zum K.’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 14/12/2001, 43

II. Case Law

1. European Commission of Human Rights

European Commission of Human Rights, ‘Report on the “Greek Case”’, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 12 (1969)

2. European Court of Human Rights

Ireland v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25 (1978)

Tyrer v. United Kingdom, ECHR, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26 (1978)

Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Opinion of the European Commission of Human Rights as expressed in the Commission’s report of 1 March 1991, Series A, no. 244

Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, ECHR, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C

Ribitsch v. Austria, ECHR, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336

Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, ECHR 1996-VI

Aydin v. Turkey, ECHR, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, No. 50

Tekin v. Turkey, ECHR, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV

Ahmet Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, judgment of 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, No. 1

Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, judgment of 28 July 1999, ECHR 1999-V

İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, judgment of 27 June 2000, ECHR 2000-VII

Salman v. Turkey [GC], no 21986/93, judgment of 27 June 2000, ECHR 2000-VII

Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, judgment of 11 July 2000, ECHR 2000-VIII

Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, ECHR, judgment of 24 April 2003, available under <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=24351/94&sessionid=681654&skin=hudoc-en>

Elçi and Others v. Turkey, no. 23145/93 and 25091/94, ECHR, judgment of 13 November 2003, available under <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm& action=html&highlight=2314 5/93&sessionid=681686&skin=hudoc-en>

Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, ECHR, judgment of 20 July 2004, available under <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=47940/99&sessionid=681686&skin=hudoc-en>

3. German Courts

Bundesgerichtshof 11, 211

Bundesverfassungsgericht 2 BvR 2360/95 of September 15, 1999

Kammergericht Berlin Juristische Rundschau (2001) 162

Kammergericht Berlin Strafverteidiger (2002) 122

Oberlandesgericht Bremen Neue Zeitung für Strafrecht-Rechtsprechungs-Report Strafrecht (2000) 270

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 03.03.1994 – 3 Ws 113/94

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 15.03.1994 – 2 AR 32/94 – 3 Ws 4/94 und 3 Ws 71/94

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 15.03.1994 – 2 AR 311/94 – 3 Ws 119/94

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1997) 1647

4. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Prosecutor v. Furundzija, ICTY, no. IT-95-17/1, Trial Chamber Judgment of 10 December 1998., § 144, available under <www.un.org/icty/furundzija/trialc2/judgement/index.htm>

5. U.S. Court

Rochin v. California (1952) 346 US 165

III. Legislation

Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

American Convention on Human Rights

Australian Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW)

Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures Act) 1998 (SA)

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Geneva Conventions

German Basic Law

German Code of Criminal Procedure

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

European Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Police Powers (Internally Concealed Drugs) Act 2001 (NSW)

United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

United States Constitution

Victoria Police Manual

IV. Other Sources

Medical Dictionary of Medical Related Terminology, keyword: gastroscopy, <http://medical-dictionary.com/dictionaryresults.php> of 1 March 1998 at 19 December 2004

Medical Dictionary of Medical Related Terminology, keyword: ultrasonography, <http://medical-dictionary.com/dictionaryresults.php> of 12 May 1997 at 19 December 2004

Wikipedia, Die freie Enzyklopädie, keyword: Gestaendnis, <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gest%C3&A4ndnis> at 19 December 2004

Wikipedia, Die freie Enzyklopädie, keyword: Information, <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Information>, 19 December 2004

Emma Farag, Illicit Drug Policy Officer within NSW Police, Email from Daniel Sheehy, NSW Police, to the author, 15 March 2004

Email from Scott Feeney, Sergeant with the State Drug Investigation Group, Queensland Police Service, to the author, 16 March 2004

Email from Scott Feeney, Sergeant with the State Drug Investigation Group, Queensland Police Service, to the author, 23 March 2004

Email from Glen Ball, Detective Inspector of the Drug Investigation Services, City Police Station, Hobart, to the author, 24 March 2004

Email from Robin Kelly, South Australian Police, to the author, 27 April 2004

Email from Christine Vincent, Project Officer with the Drug and Alcohol Strategy Unit, Victoria Police, to the author, 13 May 2004

Mark Pedly, Commonwealth Deputy Director of Prosecutions in Melbourne, Email from Ian Leader-Elliott, Lecturer at the University of Adelaide, School of Law, to the author, 23 June 2004

Damien Appleby, Australian Federal Police, Melbourne, Email from Ian Leader-Elliott, Lecturer at the University of Adelaide, School of Law, to the author, 1 July 2004

First Part: Introduction, aim and purpose of the thesis

I. Introduction

Early in the morning of 9 December 2001, officers belonging to the Drug Investigation Unit of the Hamburg Police observe St. Georg, a quarter near the Hamburg Central Station known for the ease with which narcotics can be bought there. At 8.20 a.m. the police officers catch sight of the 23 year old Michael Paul Nwabuisi from Nigeria who lives in Germany under the pseudonym of Achidi John^[1]. The officers recognise a small white object in the person’s mouth. After the man realises that he is the aim of a police observation, he swallows hard. The officers therefore ask for details over the car radio and they are told that Mr. Nwabuisi has been known by the police for a longer time as dealing intensively with narcotics. Because of all these suspicious clues the Police arrest him right away on Danziger Strasse.

The police officers then transport Mr. Nwabuisi to the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University Clinic Eppendorf. There, the Nigerian is asked by the medical practitioner to drink a vomit-inducing drug^[2] called ipecac syrup. But he declines it. The Prosecutor in charge therefore issues an order under s. 81 a (1) 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure saying that the internally concealed narcotics shall be removed forcefully from his body.

Hence, the medical practitioner lays a tube through the nose and into the stomach of the young man in order to administer the syrup. Since Mr. Nwabuisi defends himself strongly, five police officers are necessary to fix him. During the whole procedure the young man constantly cries “I will die”.

When finally the medical practitioner finishes the administration of the emetic, Mr. Nwabuisi collapses. Another medical practitioner is called and diagnoses a heart attack. After too long a time, the medical personal manages to revive the young man. But the Nigerian never fully wakes up again. For three days he stays in a comatose state. On 12 December 2001, he is diagnosed brain dead and the life-prolonging instruments are turned off.

In Mr. Nwabuisi’s stomach 41 containers of narcotics are found^[3].

Criminal investigations into this issue were initiated^[4]: The Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Free University of Berlin together with the German Heart Centre Berlin were asked to submit medical reports on the possible cause of death. They detected that Mr. Nwabuisi had suffered a lethal lack of oxygen. The previous circulatory collapse was triggered by a severe heart defect the young man already showed. It was assumed by the German Heart Centre that the coronary defect stemmed from the abuse of cocaine; this was based on the fact that traces of cocaine could be found in the dead person’s hair. It further came to light that the heart defect was almost impossible to diagnose even if the medical practitioner during the diagnosis had carried out an extensive coronary check^[5].

Although the medical reports showed that the administration of ipecac syrup is very unlikely to be responsible for the death of Mr. Nwabuisi, this case still caused an outcry throughout Germany. The use of emetics as a method of law enforcement in general led to plenty of at least critical articles in the main German newspapers, journals and magazines. Some journalists even made wholesale judgments about the State Police and the medical practitioners taking part in the procedure of law enforcement and either reproached or condemned them in general of breaches of the suspect’s fundamental rights. Furthermore, political controversy occurred in the concerned state governments which made it necessary to discuss once more whether this method shall be used as a means of criminal procedure. The Courts, but more so legal commentators took part in the questioning of admissibility of this Police measure as well. The authorities extensively reviewed the procedure from a judicial perspective, questioning its legal basis together with some of the constituent elements and presenting possible targets regarding the German Basic Law. All this shall be presented more into depths later under Second Part, I., p. 8-9.

II. Aim and purpose of the thesis

The following thesis is concerned with the use of emetics to obtain internally concealed narcotics as evidence.

The administration of a vomit-inducing medication is undertaken in several states throughout Germany as a means to search and seize evidence in drug street dealings. Whenever a mouth dealing^[6] occurs and the suspect in the process of an arrest internally conceals the narcotics by swallowing them, the procedure is carried out to get hold of the evidence. On the one hand, it is therefore necessary to present the legal basis and the constituent elements of the criminal defence. On the other hand it is interesting to know the facts about this procedure, namely how the administration of the emetic takes place, where in Germany the method occurs and to what extent it is used. All this shall be examined in the forthcoming pages.

The thesis further compares the German measure to obtain evidence in cases of internal concealment with the Australian one. This part shall be structured in the following manner: Firstly, it is questionable whether Australia at all encounters problems of mouth dealings and internal concealment. Then, in a second step, the question shall be answered whether the Australian State Police Departments try to remove internally concealed evidence in order to get hold of it and introduce it into the trial. If this is the case, it needs to be recovered which procedures are used in this country, especially whether the administration of a vomit-inducing drug is also undertaken. Lastly, the issues already mentioned regarding the admissibility and the way of carrying out the use of emetics are of concern to Australia as well.

Having presented how Germany and Australia deal with internal concealment of drugs and thus compared two different national legal systems with each other, it is necessary to move on to the global and the regional aspects of the thesis. The aim of this part is to examine whether the administration of a vomit-inducing medicament in order to obtain evidence is compatible with International Law. It shall be especially scrutinised if the use of emetics is a means of torture and thus infringes the suspect’s fundamental rights of human dignity and personal integrity. Since there are quite a few treaties dealing with this issue, the thesis can only choose two and confine itself to examining them.

Second Part: Procedures of obtaining evidence in cases of internal concealment in Germany and Australia

I. The German procedure

‘Mouth dealing’ is a common modus operandus of drug street dealers in Germany. This term describes the method of transporting narcotics within the mouth in order to conceal them from the police. Generally, the dealers package small portions of narcotics mostly crack cocaine, cocaine and heroine and keep these bubbles in their mouths until they sell them to a user. Only then do they take the containers out of their mouths and hand them over to users who most of the time conceal them in the same way.

This method of concealment is particularly necessary in street dealing areas with a high amount of police presence. Since the openness of street deals in a city does not only reveal major drug problems but also threatens the public health, the feeling of safety and security of the population and the faith in the efficiency of the Police this is generally the case in Germany.

Hence, the German Police has been confronted with mouth dealings for several years now. As early as the mid-1980s drug dealers who traded in cocaine and heroin on Frankfurt’s streets increasingly used this method. They sealed small portions of the narcotics in plastic, mostly garbage bags, and hid them in their mouths until the deal was made. This modus operandus especially could be found with Black African drug dealers, later with North Africans as well.

In May 1989, crack cocaine was detected for the first time in Frankfurt and as soon as 1993 became a major problem. Dealers who sold this new narcotic took over the method of concealment and regularly held the wrapped up narcotic in their mouths.

So mouth dealings became more and more known within the drug scene. Since this method was effective in concealing narcotics from the Police, in the end, it spread all over Germany. What first occurred only in very rare cases became a common modus operandus wherever street dealings took place.

Mouth dealing in itself would not be a major problem if the police would be able to force the suspect’s mouth open and retrieve the evidence from it. In the beginning, the police officers even tried to act this way. Under s. 102, 105 (1) German Code of Criminal Procedure this procedure is justified under German Law as a body search^[7]. But the police officers soon realised that the dealers were very quick in swallowing the narcotics in order to avoid detection and seizure^[8].

Therefore, the Police had to find an alternative measure in order to cope with the increasing problem of mouth dealings and internal concealment of narcotics. They asked for medical advice which came to the conclusion that the use of emetics need to be preferred to other possible measures. Especially waiting until the narcotics pass out naturally had been dismissed as a solution because of probable health implications for the suspect and the duration of the procedure. Due to the low quality of the surrounding wrap the drug bubbles can be easily damaged while being transported through the suspect’s intestinal tract. Thus, the possibility of a lethal portion being released becomes higher the longer the narcotics stay in the body. Obviously, vomiting removes the narcotics the fastest and therefore exposes persons to less danger for their physical well-being (Art. 2 (2) 1 German Basic Law). Furthermore the administration of the vomit-inducing medication is carried out fast. In general, the procedure is completely finished within approximately two hours^[9]. Waiting until the narcotics pass out naturally, however, can take up to several days depending for example on whether the suspect had eaten before he swallowed the drug. The use of emetics therefore is also more compatible with the suspect’ right to freedom as per Art. 2 (2) 2 German Basic Law.

Bremen was the first state to introduce the use of emetics in order to obtain evidence in cases of internal concealment of narcotics. This happened in late 1991. Not long after this, the Frankfurt Police took the procedure over as well and then, one by one, almost every state that has been and still is confronted with the problem of mouth dealings followed. The empowerment of the law enforcement measure was supposed to be found in s. 81 a (1) 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision states,

A physical examination of the accused may be ordered for the establishments of facts which are of importance for the proceedings. For this purpose, the taking of blood samples and other bodily intrusions which are effected by a physician in accordance with the rules of medical science for the purpose of examination shall be admissible without the accused’s consent, provided no detriment to his health is to be expected^[10].

It is highly disputed within the German legal profession whether the administration of a vomit-inducing medicament is admissible under this section. The opponents advocate the view that s. 81 a (1) 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure is a specification of subparagraph 1 of the same provision according to which the suspect can be examined for physical characteristics^[11] such as warts, liver spots, birthmarks and so on; moreover, the medical practitioner is allowed to take measurements regarding the constitution and functioning of the suspect’s body^[12] including the psychological condition and the mode of operation of the brain^[13]. The difference between these two subparagraphs is supposed to be the intensity of the effect these methods have on the suspect’s physical integrity. Whereas the first part of the section regards cases where no intrusions into the person’s body take place, the second part applies to cases where the body surface is injured. However, both alternatives are understood to apply only to physical material. But obviously, drugs are not part of the suspect’s body and, hence, cannot be comprised under this provision. S. 81 a (1) 2 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure thus is held not to be a justification of the use of emetics.

The opponents therefore need to ask for another empowerment to administer a vomit-inducing drug. They present s. 102 German Code of Criminal Procedure which justifies the search for non-physical material such as narcotics. According to this provision the Police is allowed to search in or underneath the clothes of the suspect, on the body surface or in natural orifices of the body (mouth, vagina, anus). However, this provision does not provide for a justification regarding intrusions into the suspect’s body. The opponents of the use of an emetic in order to obtain evidence in cases of drug street dealings therefore come to the conclusion that this procedure is illegal under German Law^[14].

As opposed to this, the majority of the authorities in the literature claim that s. 81 a (1) 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure authorises a medical practitioner to administer a vomit-inducing medicament in order to obtain evidence for the trial^[15]. They argue that this section is applicable in cases where intrusions into the suspect’s body occur regardless of whether the search aims at the finding of physical or non-physical material. In their eyes, s. 81 a (1) 2 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the search to certain objects. Possible procedures which fall under the provision such are understood to be the taking of a blood sample, as explicitly laid down in s. 81 a (1) 2 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, the extraction of spinal cord fluid, semen and urine, the administration of medicine, the exposition to x-rays, gastroscopy^[16], sonography^[17] or any other injuries of the body surface^[18]. The use of emetics therefore is also taken to be justified according to s. 81 a (1) 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure^[19] as long as the constituent elements of the provision are complied with.

Moreover, the administration of a vomit-inducing drug is mainly criticised by German authorities as

- not being justified under s. 81 a (1) 2 German Code of Criminal Procedure because one or several of the requirements are not given^[20] ;
- breaching the legal concept contained in § 136 a (1) German Code of Criminal Procedure that certain procedures are always outlawed no matter in which situation they occur^[21] ; the provision itself only applies to examinations and, hence, is not applicable in this case;
- violating the principle against self-incrimination as per Art. 2 (1) in combination with Art. 1 (1) German Basic Law^[22] ;
- infringing the suspect’s human dignity under Art. 1 (1) German Basic Law^[23].

The last reproach is of special importance for the thesis since Art. 1 (1) German Basic Law is one of the German provisions that deal with the prohibition of torture. Although neither the German Basic Law nor the German Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibit torture it is unquestionable that there are various provisions that deal with this demand.

Due to being one of the elements of the minimum standard of human rights^[24], the prohibition of torture is part of the fundamental rights laid down in the German Basic Law. The prohibition of torture can thus be found in Art. 2 (2) 1 in combination with Art. 1 (1) German Basic Law. These provisions deal with infringements of a person’s human dignity and physical integrity in general and thus apply to all kinds of situations.

Art. 104 (1) 2 in combination with Art. 1 (1) German Basic Law, however, takes priority over the previously mentioned Articles with regard to detained persons^[25]. As opposed to Art. 2 (2) 1, Art. 104 (1) 2 German Basic Law does not allow reservations to the protection of the provision’s legal asset and thus shows that in relation to detainees the use of force is prohibited absolutely^[26]. This can be explained because of the higher risk of a detained person to be maltreated by public officials since there is no chance to leave the place^[27].

The scope of the prohibition of torture is lawfully outlined in s. 136 a German Code of Criminal Procedure^[28]. Under this provision certain methods of examination are prohibited such as ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception and hypnosis^[29].

[...]

---

^[1] Furthermore, he pretended that he was 19 years old and from Cameroon since with these details, he could not be deported.

^[2] The medical term ‘emetic’ will be used concurrently in the following.

^[3] Brechmitteleinsatz: Dealer in Lebensgefahr, Die WELT (Berlin) 10/12/2001, 33; Schill verteidigt Brechmittel-Einsatz gegen Drogendealer, Die WELT (Berlin), 11/12/2001, 4; Ipecacuanha, Die WELT (Berlin), 11/12/2001, 34; Thomas Vinsor Wolgast, „Einnahme durch Magensonde gefährlich“, Nach der erzwungenen Verabreichung eines Brechmittels befindet sich ein Drogendealer in Lebensgefahr, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 12/12/2001, 9; Zum K., Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 14/12/2001, 43; Friedrich Hansen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (Frankfurt), 16/12/2001, 76; Martin Knobbe, Tod eines Dealers, Stern (Hamburg), No. 39/2002, 58 at 58-64, 68, 70.

^[4] Klaus Püschel, quoted after: Brechmittel: Dealer war herzkrank, Drogenpolitik, Allein in diesem Jahr gab es 74 Einsätze, 2001 waren es nur 36, Hamburger Abendblatt (Hamburg), 20-21/04/2002, 11; Klaus Püschel, quoted after: Vermischtes, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (Frankfurt), 21/04/2002, 11; Staatsanwaltschaften Hamburg, Tod des 19jährigen Achidi J. aus Kamerun (alias: 23jährigen Michael Paul N. aus Nigeria) am 12/12/2001 nach Vomitivmitteleinsatz vom 09.12.2001, 01/07/2002, 1 at 1-2; Martin Knobbe, Tod eines Dealers, Stern (Hamburg), No. 39/2002, 58 at 70; Bürgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, Bericht des Wissenschaftsausschusses über Vorfälle im Institut für Rechtsmedizin (Selbstbefassung gemäß § 53 Absatz 2 GO), 04/02/2003, 17. Wahlperiode, Drs. 17/2189, 1 at 2; Gabriele Heinecke, Antrag im Rahmen des Klageerzwingungsverfahrens, available under: <www.brechmitteleinsatz.de/presse/klageerzwingung.pdf>, 1 at 27.

^[5] The Prosecution thus abandoned investigations on 27 June 2002. However, Mrs. Gabriele Heinecke, the parents’ lawyer, issued proceedings to force the public prosecution to prefer criminal charges. Hence, the Prosecution initiated investigations once more and asked for new reports. Up to this day, the case remains unsolved.

^[6] Please find this term explained later under Second Part, I., p. 4.

^[7] For this and other provisions please see Appendix to the thesis.

^[8] Steven E. Aks et al, ‘Cocaine Liberation From Body Packets in an In Vitro Model’, Annals of Emergency Medicine 21 (1992) 1321 at 1322; Eggen, in: Charles V. Pollack et al, ‘Two Crack Cocaine Body Stuffers’, Annals of Emergency Medicine 21 (1992) 1370 at 1373; Horst Kraushaar, Der Körperschmuggel von Kokain, Eine empirische Untersuchung zum illegalen Drogenimport unter besonderer Beachtung kriminologischer, kriminalistischer und strafprozessualer Aspekte, Dissertation Gießen (1992) 37; N. E. Beck and J. E. Hale, ‘Cocaine “body packers“’, British Journal of Surgery 80 (1993) 1513 at 1513; Edda Weßlau, Anmerkung zum Urteil des OLG Frankfurt/Main vom 11.10.1996, Strafverteidiger 1996, p. 651-655, in: Strafverteidiger (1997), 341 at 341; Lisa Maher and David Dixon, ‘Policing and Public Health: Law Enforcement and Harm Minimization in a Street-level Drug Market’, British Journal of Criminology (1999) 39 (4) 488 at 496; Karl A Sporer and Jennifer Firestone, ‘Clinical Course of Crack Cocaine Body Stuffers’, Annals of Emergency Medicine 29 (2000) 596 at 596-597; Axel Heinemann and Ute Lockemann, ‘Risiken gastrointestinaler Inkorporation von Betäubungsmitteln durch „Body-stuffer“ und „Body-packer“’, p. 171-184, in: Gastrointestinale Ursachen des plötzlichen Todes, Festschrift für Klaus Püschel zum 50. Geburtstag, Michael Tsokos (ed) (2002) 171 at 173, 178.

^[9] Detlef Vetter, Problemschwerpunkte des § 81 a StPO, Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Brechmittelvergabe im strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren, Dissertation (2000) 16.

^[10] Italics added by the author.

^[11] Hans Dahs, in: Löwe/Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommen-tar, Peter Rieß (ed) (26th Delivery, 2003) Sections 72-93, Section 81a, [16]; Bernhard Kramer, Grundbegriffe des Strafverfahrensrechts, Ermittlung und Verfahren (5th ed, 2002), [230].

^[12] Werner Beulke, Strafprozessrecht (6th ed, 2002), [241]; Bernhard Kramer, Grundbegriffe des Strafverfahrens-rechts, Ermittlung und Verfahren (5th ed, 2002), [259].

^[13] Gerd Pfeiffer, Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (4th ed, 2002), Section 81a, [3]; Lutz Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Nebengesetze und ergänzende Bestimmungen, Kurzkommentar (46th ed, 2003), Section 81a, [9 a].

^[14] Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1997) 1647 at 1648; Jens Dallmeyer, ‘Verletzt der zwangsweise Brechmitteleinsatz gegen Beschuldigte deren Persönlichkeitsrechte?’, Strafverteidiger (1997) 606 at 609; Jens Dallmeyer, ‘Die Integrität des Beschuldigten im reformierten Strafprozess – Zur zwangsweisen Verabreichung von Brechmitteln bei mutmaßlichen Drogendealern’ , Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (2000), 252 at 255.

^[15] Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 03.03.1994 – 3 Ws 113/94, 1 at 2; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 15.03.1994 – 2 AR 32/94 – 3 Ws 4/94 und 3 Ws 71/94, 1 at 4; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 15.03.1994 – 2 AR 311/94 – 3 Ws 119/94, 1 at 2; Oberlandesgericht Bremen Neue Zeitung für Strafrecht-Rechtsprechungs-Report Strafrecht (2000) 270 at 270; Kammergericht Berlin Juristische Rundschau (2001) 162 at 162-164; Kammergericht Berlin Strafverteidiger (2002) 122 at 122-124; Gerd Pfeiffer, Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (4th ed, 2002) Section 81a, [1], Section 136a, [7]; Lothar Senge, in: Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz mit Einführungsgesetz, Gerd Pfeiffer (ed) (5th ed, 2003), Section 81a, [6], [14]; Klaus Rogall, in: Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Hans-Joachim Rudolphi (ed) (31st Delivery, September 2003), Section 81a, [48].

^[16] Examination of the abdomen or stomach, as with the gastroscope, see: Medical Dictionary of Medical Related Terminology, keyword: gastroscopy, <http://medical-dictionary.com/dictionaryresults.php> of 1 March 1998 at 19 December 2004.

^[17] A technique in which high-frequency sound waves are bounced off internal organs and the echo pattern is converted into a two dimensional picture of the structure beneath the transducer, see: Medical Dictionary of Medical Related Terminology, keyword: ultrasonography, <http://medical-dictionary.com/dictionaryresults.php> of 12 May 1997 at 19 December 2004.

^[18] Hans Dahs, in: Löwe/Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommen-tar, Peter Rieß (ed) (26th Delivery, 2003) Sections 72-93, Section 81a, [22]; Lothar Senge, in: Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz mit Einführungsgesetz, Gerd Pfeiffer (ed) (5th ed, 2003), Section 81a, [6]; Bernhard Kramer, Grundbegriffe des Strafverfahrensrechts, Ermittlung und Verfahren, (5th ed, 2002), [260]; Gerd Pfeiffer, Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfas-sungsgesetz (4th ed, 2002), Section 81a, [5]; Klaus Rogall, in: Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessord-nung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Hans-Joachim Rudolphi (ed) (31st Delivery, September 2003), Section 81a, [38 f.]; Lutz Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Nebengesetze und ergänzen-de Bestimmungen, Kurzkommentar (46th ed, 2003), Section 81a, [15].

^[19] Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 03.03.1994 – 3 Ws 113/94, 1 at 2; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 15.03.1994 – 2 AR 32/94 – 3 Ws 4/94 und 3 Ws 71/94, 1 at 4; Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 15.03.1994 – 2 AR 311/94 – 3 Ws 119/94, 1 at 2; Oberlandesgericht Bremen Neue Zeitung für Strafrecht-Rechtsprechungs-Report Strafrecht (2000) 270 at 270; Kammergericht Berlin Juristische Rundschau (2001) 162 at 162-164; Kammergericht Berlin Strafverteidiger (2002) 122 at 122-124; Gerd Pfeiffer, Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (4th ed, 2002), Section 81a, [1], Section 136a, [7]; Lothar Senge, in: Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz mit Einführungsgesetz, Gerd Pfeiffer (ed) (5th ed, 2003), Section 81a, [6], [14]; Klaus Rogall, in: Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung und zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Hans-Joachim Rudolphi (ed) (31st Delivery, September 2003), Section 81a, [48].

^[20] In relation to negative effects to the suspect’s health when administering ipecac syrup with the help of a tube: Edda Weßlau, ‘Juristische Stellungnahme von Frau Dr. Edda Weßlau’, Anlage 1, in: Antirassismusbüro Bremen (ed), Polizisten, die zum Brechen reizen, Verabreichung von Emetika am Beispiel Bremen (1995) 20 a; Bundes-ärztekammer, Beschlussprotokoll 105. Dt. Ärztetag 2002: Zu Punkt VI der Tagesordnung: Tätigkeitsbericht der Bundesärztekammer, Brechmitteleinsatz bei Drogendelikten, Beschlussprotokoll des 105. Deutschen Ärztetages vom 28.-31. Mai 2002 in Rostock, <http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/30/Aerztetag/105_DAET/03Beschluss/ Top6/Ethik/03.html> at 15 October 2004; Frank Ulrich Montgomery, Hamburger Ärzteblatt 3/2002, 116 at 117; Fredrik Roggan, ’”Etwas von Folter...“, Tödlicher Brechmitteleinsatz in Hamburg’, Bürgerrechte & Polizei/ CILIP 71 (1/2002) 59 at 65; with regard to negative effects to the suspect’s health after administering apomor-phine: Harald Hans Körner, Betäubungsmittelgesetz, Arzneimittelgesetz (5th ed, 2001) 433, § 29/703; Gerhard Grüner, ‘Die zwangsweise Vergabe von Brechmitteln – OLG Frankfurt a. M., NJW 1997, 1647 ff.’, Juristische Schulung 1999, 122 at 124.

^[21] Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1997) 1647 at 1649; Jens Dallmeyer, ‘Verletzt der zwangsweise Brechmitteleinsatz gegen Beschuldigte deren Persönlichkeitsrechte?’, Strafverteidiger (1997) 606 at 610.

^[22] Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1997) 1647 at 1648; Jens Dallmeyer, ‘Verletzt der zwangsweise Brechmitteleinsatz gegen Beschuldigte deren Persönlichkeitsrechte?’, Strafverteidiger (1997) 606 at 608; Jürgen Vahle, ‘Zwangsweise Verabreichung von Brechmitteln’, Anmerkung zum Urteil des OLG Frankfurt/Main vom 11.10.1996, Strafverteidiger (1996) 651, in: Deutsche Verwaltungspraxis (1997) 482 at 482; Jens Dallmeyer, Die Integrität des Beschuldigten im reformierten Strafprozess – Zur zwangsweisen Ver-abreichung von Brechmitteln bei mutmaßlichen Drogendealern, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 2000, 252 at 266; Wolfgang Naucke, Anmerkung zum Beschluss des BVerfG vom 15.09.1999, Strafverteidiger (2000) 1 at 2.

^[23] Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt/Main Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1997) 1647 at 1648; Jens Dallmeyer, ‘Verletzt der zwangsweise Brechmitteleinsatz gegen Beschuldigte deren Persönlichkeitsrechte?’, Strafverteidiger (1997) 606 at 609; Jürgen Vahle, ‘Zwangsweise Verabreichung von Brechmitteln’, Anmerkung zum Urteil des OLG Frankfurt/Main vom 11.10.1996, Strafverteidiger 1996, p. 651, in: Deutsche Verwaltungspraxis (1997) 482 at 482; Jens Dallmeyer, Die Integrität des Beschuldigten im reformierten Strafprozess – Zur zwangsweisen Ver-abreichung von Brechmitteln bei mutmaßlichen Drogendealern, Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 2000, 252 at 256-257.

^[24] Ondolf Rojahn, in: Ingo von Münch and Philip Kunig (eds), Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Volume 2 (Art. 21 bis Art. 69) (3rd ed, 1995) Art. 25 GG, [29].

^[25] Winfried Brugger, ‘Darf der Staat ausnahmsweise foltern?’, Der Staat, Zeitschrift für Staatslehre Öffentliches Recht und Verfassungsgeschichte 35 (1996) 67 at 71-72; Christoph Gusy, in: Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein and Christian Starck (eds), Das Bonner Grundgesetz, Kommentar, Volume 3: Artikel 79-146 (4th ed, 2001) Art. 104, [29].

^[26] Winfried Brugger, ‘Darf der Staat ausnahmsweise foltern?’, Der Staat, Zeitschrift für Staatslehre Öffentliches Recht und Verfassungsgeschichte 35 (1996) 67 at 71-72.

^[27] Christoph Gusy, in: Hermann von Mangoldt, Friedrich Klein and Christian Starck (eds), Das Bonner Grundgesetz, Kommentar, Volume 3: Artikel 79-146 (4th ed, 2001) Art. 104, [29].

^[28] Christoph Degenhart, in: Michael Sachs (ed), Grundgesetz, Kommentar (3rd ed, 2003) Art. 104, [45].

^[29] United Nations, Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Committee against Torture, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention, Third periodic report of Germany, 2 September 2002, CAT/C/49/Add.4, 8 July 2003, p. 21, paragraph 193.